alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Christopher T. Seaver, Chief Executive Officer of Hydril
Company, a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:



(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter-ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                          
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Dated: November 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Christopher T. Seaver
|                        |  | Christopher T. Seaver    
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 6.1



MAXCOM TELECOMUNICACIONES, S.A.B. de C.V.
AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                           |  | Year Ended December 31,       |         
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------- | --------
|                                           |  | 2012                          |         
|                                           |  | (thousands of pesos and share |         
|                                           |  | amounts, except per share)    |         
|                                           |  |                               |         
|Weighted average shares (Basic EPS)        |  |                               | 789,819 
|Weighted average shares (Diluted EPS)      |  |                               | 812,882 
|Net (loss) before Income Tax               |  |                               | (120,528
|Preferred stock dividend                   |  |                               | —       
|Amount allocated to preferred shareholders |  |                               | —       
|Net (loss) Income                          |  |                               | (136,088
|Basic EPS                                  |  |                               | (0.17   
|Diluted EPS                                |  |                               | (0.17
Claudia SANDOVAL-SERRANO, Appellant, v. Michael FEELEY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1006

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2018

Shannon L. Akins of the Law Offices of Shannon L. Akins, P.A., Orlando; and David T. Roberts of The Roberts Family Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Order entered February 10 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00744
- CV
ROBBIE LESA HAMES HO RTON, Appellant

V. KIMBERLY A. STOVALL, Appellee On Appeal from t he 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 14190



### O RDER This case has been remanded by the Texas Supreme Court and reinstated on this Court’s
docket for this Court to provide appellant a n opportunity to cure her fail ure to cite to the appellate record in her brief. Horton v. Stovall , No. 18

- 0925, 2019 WL 6971668, at *3 (Tex. Dec. 20, 2019). Accordin gly, we ORDER a ppellant to file, within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order, an amended brief that provides citations to the clerk’s record in support of appellant’s argument. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(i) (brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record). The amended brief may, but is no t required to, supplement, amend, or correct any briefing deficiency. If appellant fails to file an amended brief, the case will be submitted on appellant’s brief filed inthis Court on December 6, 2016.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event
reported)
    
    March 9, 2006
 Targeted Genetics Corporation
 
  Washington
    
    0-23930
    
    91-1549568(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File
Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 1100 Olive Way, Suite 100, Seattle, Washington
    
    98101(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    (206) 623-7612
 Not Applicable
 
   o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.SIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXEXHIBIT 5.1EXHIBIT 10.1EXHIBIT 99.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement .
    
 Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits .
  Exhibits:
    
    Description of Document5.1
    
    
    Opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP regarding the validity of the shares of common stock issued10.1
    
    
    Form of Purchase Agreement dated March 9, 200623.1
    
    
    Consent of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (included in Exhibit 5.1)99.1
    
    
    Press Release of Targeted Genetics Corporation dated March 10, 2006
 2




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  Targeted Genetics CorporationBy:
    /s/ H. Stewart ParkerH. Stewart ParkerPresident and Chief Executive Officer  3




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibits:
    
    Description of Document5.1
    
    
    Opinion of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP regarding the validity of the shares of common stock issued10.1
    
    
    Form of Purchase Agreement dated March 9, 200623.1
    
    
    Consent of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (included in Exhibit 5.1)99.1
    
    
    Press Release of Targeted Genetics Corporation dated March 10, 2006
 4
EX-4.1






Exhibit 4.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

(2008 Amendment and Restatement)




     WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently
maintained pursuant to a 2008 Amendment and Restatement (“Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to amend the Plan further;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth:



     1. Effective as of January 1, 2008, but only with respect to Awards that were
earned or become vested on or after January 1, 2005, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.1
of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:




“If distribution is to be made in installments, payment of installments following the first
installment shall be made within thirty (30) days following each anniversary of (1) the date
referred to in clause (i) or (ii) of the first sentence of this Section 3.1 or (2) the date
of a Participant’s Termination of Employment, as applicable, until all installments have
been paid.”



     2. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan
shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized representative on this 19th day of May, 2008.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	By: /s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	 

	 	Title: Secretary
Cynthia GREEN-ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1792

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2413

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 19, 2018]

Anthony Hoskins, Bonifay, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

After a fifth violation of probation, Appellant Anthony Hoskins was sentenced to 30 months in prison with 52 days of jail credit. Hoskins filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801 motion seeking additional jail credit for time spent in jail following previous violations of probation.1 The trial court summarily denied the 3.801 motion. Its order failed to attach any documents refuting Hoskins' claim. As the State concedes on appeal, this was reversible error, requiring remand.

"Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801(e), which incorporates Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure rule 3.850(f), the circuit court was required to attach records which conclusively refuted the defendant's motion seeking additional jail credit." *Williams v. State* , 141 So.3d 686, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5) ("If the denial is based on the records in the case, a copy of that portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief shall be attached to the final order.").

As noted above, the State concedes that the trial court's order does not comply with the Rule. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of records conclusively refuting Hoskins' claim for additional jail credit.

*Reversed and remanded* .

Gerber, C.J., Forst and Kuntz, JJ., concur.

1

Hoskins' motion claims that he had previously been in jail multiple times for violations of probation, but had only been awarded jail credit for the last jail stay.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40784 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee v. J UAN HER NAND EZ - GUE RR ER O D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C R - 375- 1 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L L Yan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u bl i c D efen der ap p o in ted to r epresent Ju an H erna n dezG u errer o ha s m oved f or l eave to w i t h draw an d h as filed a bri ef i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v. C a lifo rn ia , 386 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . H erna n dez-G u errer o ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of th e record an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o non f

ri vo lou s i ssue f

or app eal . A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon sibi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of RxBazaar, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C. Robert Cusick,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1)    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ C. Robert Cusick
---------------------------------------
C. Robert Cusick
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


May 15, 2003



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to RxBazaar, Inc. and will be retained by RxBazaar, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Antonio Teshawn NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-258

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied December 21, 2018

Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
1 According to both parties Automania also filed a bill of review in county court, then

dismissed that and filed a bill of review in the justice court; the latter apparently remains pending. 

### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00592-CV

Automania, L.L.C., Appellant

v.

Jason May, Appellee

FROM THE JUSTICE COURT # 3 OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 32003-S-0012, HONORABLE DIANA G. CAMPOS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Automania, L.L.C. filed a notice of restricted appeal from a default judgment in favor

of Jason May rendered by a justice of the peace. Because we find no basis on which this appeal may

be brought directly from justice court to this Court, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

May sued Automania, seeking to recover for damages incurred when Automania

breached a contract to rebuild his engine. May alleged that Automania defectively rebuilt the engine

and refused to repair the engine. May recovered a default judgment for return of the $4600 in actual

damages and $400 for attorney’s fees. Because the damages were limited to $5000, the justice court

could sit as a small claims court. S ee Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 28.002-.003 (West 2004).

Automania filed a notice of restricted appeal. 1 May then filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.Automania alleges in its response to May’s motion to dismiss t hat May advised Automania that a

restricted appeal filed in this Court was the proper avenue to challenge the default judgment.

2 Appeals from justice courts generally lie either in the county or the district court. S ee

id

. § 51.001; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 574b. We do not have appellate jurisdiction over an appeal

absent a final judgment or appealable order from the district court. S ee Tejas E levator Co. v.

Concord Elevator, Inc.

, 982 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.). No such judgment

or order appears in the record of this case from the justice court.

Appeals from small claims courts lie in the county court or the county court at law.

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 28.052 (West 2004). The appeal is by trial de novo, and the decision of the

county court or county court at law is final. I d

. § 28.053. There is no appeal to the courts of appeals.

Woodlands Plumbing Co. v. Rodgers

, 47 S.W.3d 146, 148 (Tex. App.—Texarka na 2001, pet.

denied); Davis v. Covert

, 983 S.W.2d 301, 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d

w.o.j.).

Because we find no basis on which we can exercise jurisdiction over this restricted

appeal from just ice court, we grant May’s motion and dismiss this appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a). We deny May’s request for sanctions.

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellee’s Motion

Filed: April 22, 2004
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - (-)science_science(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(69)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2024(2)
              - 2023(6)
              - 2022(11)
              - 2021(15)

Science Theme        February 22, 2024      Floods and Droughts

Science Theme        January 31, 2024      Hydrologic Hazards
TOSHIAKI MIZUTANI, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HMC ASSETS, LLC, Solely in Its Capacity as Separate Trustee of Cam XI Trust, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2561

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 07, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Feature Stories

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(6)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_audio(20)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(18)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_image(9)
              - multimedia_image-141771(5)
              - multimedia_image-141772(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(153)
              - multimedia_video-149194(96)
              - multimedia_video-149195(42)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - (-)news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(9)
              - connect_social_media(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(5)
              - other_basic-42(4)

## By Location

## By Year

Featured Story        June 21, 2018        Kīlauea Volcano Erupts
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7091** 

HOWARD WHITE , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. EDDIE PEARSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Anthony J
. Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00900

- AJT

- JFA )

Submitted : December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Howard White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Howard White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order i s not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that t he petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala bility, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Douglas W. Kohrs, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Medical
Systems Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: August 12, 2004By:
    
    /s/ Douglas W. KohrsName:
    
    Douglas W. KohrsTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon STEVENSON

No. 2017-KP-1754

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review and fails to show that any exception permits his successive filing.

*777*State ex rel. Stevenson v. Cain* , 15-1084 (La. 9/25/15), 175 So.3d 392.